God did NOT command the early Hebrews to kill women and children in warfare

[bengal_fan]

this argument is no longer profitable. some in here believe the bible is the word of God, inerrent and inspired. some believe it is not the word of God (because they don’t believe in God and can’t understand Him), and some believe the bible *contains * the word of God (meaning that not everything is inerrant and since they know what the overall message of the bible is, anything that seemingly contradicts that message or doesn’t go along with their interpretation of morality is not inspired and was an addition of the human authors). no one in here is going to change their view. i will stay with the view that has been held for over 3000years, the view that God did order the killings because He is God and has His reasons (which are always just and never evil).

 

[porthos11]

bengal_fan:

this argument is no longer profitable. some in here believe the bible is the word of God, inerrent and inspired. some believe it is not the word of God (because they don’t believe in God and can’t understand Him), and some believe the bible contains the word of God (meaning that not everything is inerrant and since they know what the overall message of the bible is, anything that seemingly contradicts that message or doesn’t go along with their interpretation of morality is not inspired and was an addition of the human authors). no one in here is going to change their view. i will stay with the view that has been held for over 3000years, the view that God did order the killings because He is God and has His reasons (which are always just and never evil).

Me too. This is my last post on this thread. All I say in closing is that God has absolute mastery over me and my life, and that he has the right to do anything with it, even take it. I am only God’s creature and I answer to him,not vice versa.

 

[chrisg93]

To those still learning this thread is very interesting. As a faithful, average Catholic I keep seeing Bible passages that do not conform to the conservative Catholic schooling (grades 1-9). My personal cross is the OT passage of “if you son gets drunk, you shall stone him to death”. At any rate there are important principles at stake here for those of us who are learning.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve O’Brien,
Steve O'Brien:

As eminent a Catholic as Cardinal Newman was, his interpretation of *1 Sam *15 carries no weight in opposition to the Magisterium’s clear and emphatic condemnation of extermination warfare

That condemnation ought to be understood in its proper context and not ripped from that context to support a theory it never intended to support. The condemnation is that of unjust killing of non-combatants as ordered by human authority. 1 Sam 15 concerns the *JUST *command of God to utterly destroy a wicked enemy of God.

Have you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Amalec” newadvent.org/cathen/01377c.htm? I presume you disagree with this Catholic source as well? If it’s a matter of trusting your personal opinion or this Catholic source or Ven. Cardinal Newman, I think I’ll trust the latter.

Do you have something more compelling other than your own opinion which comes from a like source which actually refers to 1 Sam 15 and the divine command to utterly destroy the Amalekites?

The deaths of children in the Deluge, Sodom, and the Egypt of the Ten Plagues are not pertinent: in none of these instances did God order any human beings to kill other human beings.

And the difference is? Are you stating that only God can kill infants and children but He is not permitted to command others to utterly destroy His enemies, as is the case of the Amalekites?

To cite 1 *Sam *15 as dispositive is to beg the question. … It must be proved because it contradicts the Church’s teaching on universal non-combatant immunity.

In your opinion it contradicts Church teaching, which also begs the question: is your opinion correct? I assert that it is not. In my opinion, and the Bible commentary of Fr. William Most, the scholarly opinion of the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Cardinal Newman, it does not.

The Church’s teachings you have thrust upon us as if it supported your position have nothing to do with a context in which God is the authority which commands war by divine revelation, which is the case in 1 Sam 15. You assert that it wasn’t God that commanded such destruction. The Bible disagrees with you, as does Fr. William Most, the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman.

we cannot exclude the possibility that the human author is citing Samuel’s words in this chapter without intending to affirm them in their totality.

Now your heading into exegetical la la land much like the “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar. It’s a simple question: Did God command the utter destruction of the Amalekites as 1 Sam 15 clearly states? The writer of Samuel was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write exactly as he wrote. At least one venerable Cardinal agrees with me that this was the clear command of God through Samuel, his true prophet.

Clearly, in an explicit citation, a Biblical author may refrain from asserting the truth of something that he quotes.

The entire account of Samuel’s disobedience presumes the command to utterly destory the Amalekites came from God through Samuel. When Saul summoned the spirit of Samuel from the grave, Samuel again affirmed that Saul was being punished because he did not obey God’s divine command to utterly destroy the Amalekites. You have lots of exegetical gymnastics to do before any contrary interpretation can make sense.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

bengal_fan:

This argument is no longer profitable. Some in here believe the Bible is the word of God, inerrant and inspired. Some believe it is not the word of God (because they don’t believe in God and can’t understand Him), and some believe the Bible contains the word of God (meaning that not everything is inerrant and, since they know what the overall message of the Bible is, anything that seemingly contradicts that message or doesn’t go along with their interpretation of morality is not inspired and was an addition of the human authors). No one in here is going to change their view. I will stay with the view that has been held for over 3000 years, the view that God did order the killings because He is God and has His reasons (which are always just and never evil).

As a Catholic, I firmly believe that ***every word * ** of Sacred Scripure is inspired and inerrant. But I believe in the Catholic dogmas of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy in the sense in which the Church herself understands those dogmas. Every Catholic dogma must be understand in that sense and in no other. Note, for example, the manner in which the Church interprets the dictum “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”: the Church does *not * want us to say that every non-Catholic automatically goes to hell (*CCC * 846-848).

In her official teaching on Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the Church provides principles that permit Catholics to resolve rationally the contradiction between the *superficial * meaning of the problematic Old Testament passages and the Biblical condemnation of the killing of the innocent. This is a serious contradiction that must be resolved to protect the faith of believers and to remove an obstacle preventing unbelievers from reaching faith. Saying that “God ordered the killing of babies” is *not * a satisfactory resolution of this dilemma.

One of the principles that allow us to preserve our belief in both Biblical inerrancy and the sinfulness of killing any innocent human being is the fact that the books of the Old Testament “contain matters imperfect and provisional” (Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, section 15; *CCC * 122). The early Hebrews’ ignorance of the evil of killing non-combatants in war is an example of this imperfection. But the point is that no Biblical author actually *affirms * (in the Church’s sense of affirmation) that this barbarism is not evil.

Another principle is that we must read Scripture with attention to its totality and unity (*CCC * 112). The message of the whole Bible on the inviolable sacredness of innocent human life is summarized in this Old Testament verse: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous” (*Ex * 23:7[RSV]; *CCC * 2261).

Still another principle is the need to read the Bible in the light of the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium (*CCC * 95, 114, 119). The Magisterium emphatically condemns the killing of the innocent and makes clear that this condemnation extends to the killing of non-combatants in any age and in any place (*CCC * 2261, 2312-2314). It is irrational to exclude from this sweeping condemnation the Holy Land during the Hebrew conquest and Saul’s kingship.

In addition to respectfully and fraternally urging the readers of this thread to study Vatican II’s *Dei Verbum * and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I refer them to the works of solid Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars. I again recommend Germain Grisez’s The Way of the Lord Jesus. Get this three-volume series.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve O’Brien,

You said:

The deaths of children in the Deluge, Sodom, and the Egypt of the Ten Plagues are not pertinent: in none of these instances did God order any human beings to kill other human beings.

I suggest you read Exodus 32. Moses told the Levite priests: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!”

These kinsmen were not combatants were they? They were however, enemies of God, sinful idolaters, and God wanted them dead, right? Or do you also assert that the author of Exodus merely quote Moses without asserting that Moses was correctly interpreting God’s divine will?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the distinction between killing merely upon one’s one authority or doing so upon the authority of God. This is a distinction that you don’t seem to be making.

St. Thomas asserts:

God works in all things without exception whatever is right, yet in each one according to its mode. Wherefore everyone should imitate God in that which is specially becoming to him. Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this. As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death by his own authority or with his own hand, but published their death sentence pronounced by God. The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands. (*Summa Theologica,IIb, 64, 4, *newadvent.org/summa/306404.htm emphasis added)

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the vengence of God such as that shown in 1 Sam 15 as follows:

Punishment may be considered in two ways. First, under the aspect of punishment, and in this way punishment is not due save for sin, because by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored, in so far as he who by sinning has exceeded in following his own will suffers something that is contrary to this will. Wherefore, since every sin is voluntary, not excluding original sin, as stated above (I-II, 81, 1), it follows that no one is punished in this way, except for something done voluntarily. Secondly, **punishment may be considered as a medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future sin, or conducing to some good, and in this way a person is sometimes punished without any fault of his own, yet not without cause. **

… sometimes a person is punished in his temporal goods without any fault of his own. Such are many of the punishments inflicted by God in this present life for our humiliation or probation. But **no one is punished in spiritual goods without any fault on his part, neither in this nor in the future life, because in the latter punishment is not medicinal, but a result of spiritual condemnation. **

**… By the judgment of God children are punished in temporal matters together with their parents, both because they are a possession of their parents, so that their parents are punished also in their person, and because this is for their good lest, should they be spared, they might imitate the sins of their parents, and thus deserve to be punished still more severely. **(*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 108, 4, newadvent.org/summa/310804.htm )

 

[Strider]

chrisg93:

porthos11,
Thanks for the reply but I cannot find it to be true for several reasons…

1. Your intrepretation makes the Bible incorrect on it’s face. You are saying hate does not mean hate.
2. Your intrepretation necessitates that all Bible readers become an ancient historian. As an average Catholic, I rely on the Bible to be clear enough to sit down and read without a degree in ancient jewish history. Don’t you think that’s a fair request from me? Don’t you think that’s the way it should be?
3. What else is misinterepted?
4. The parrell passage gives the correct interpretation. Why doesn’t this one, except that is from a faulty manuscript and has never been changed. Remenber there have been several important faulty translations that have been changed, this is not the first.
5. The passage is a direct violation of the 4th Commandment. That cannot be justified by linguistics. The passage implies that Jesus hated his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. I can’t think of a more horrible implication.

Thanks

Regarding your points 1 and 2, let me just ask you, do you still have your right eye and your right hand? If I understand your position, you shouldn’t.
Mat 5:29-30 “If your right eye cuses you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell…”
Did Jesus really want us to pluck our out eyes and cut off our right hands? Of course not. Hyperbole was a common form of teaching in first century Palestine, and intelligent Bible reading requires us to learn that.
Point 3. It depends on who’s doing the interpreting.
Point 4. Such as?
As far as God ordering the Isreaelites to kill even the women and children, am I the only one who has a copy of the Navarre Bible?
The explanation for this text in the Navarre is that not only were the Amalakites pagans and idolaters, but STD’s (as we call them today) had spread through their entire population, even the children and the animals (not pleasant to think about, but sometimes reality is harsh), and God was protecting the Israelites by having them kill everyone and everything rather than let them live and mingle with them, thereby contracting the diseases, sacrificing their children to pagan gods, etc. It’s a plausable explanation.
So, you see, what seems to us a completely un-Godlike action makes perfect sense when properly understood.
Point 5 addressed.
This is just another example of the danger of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture.
It’s taken us two years, but we have almost a complete set of the Navarre. If it’s good enough for Fr. Corapi, it’s good enough for me. The narrative explanations are enlightening, solid Catholic and very readable.
God bless

 

[PilgrimJWT]

Nonsense. Just read the Old Testament!

The question is not whether, but why. And that is a hard nut to crack. It is one of the many difficulties I have with the concept of a loviing God. But there are a good many of those who post here who much prefer the concept of a “righteous” God. And they don’t seem to have much of a problem with that.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

I suggest you read *Exodus * 32. Moses told the Levite priests: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!”

In *Ex * 32:25-29, the issue is capital punishment for those guilty of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf, not the Church’s teaching on the sinfulness of killing innocent human beings in warfare.

Dave’s citations from St. Thomas do nothing to shake the thesis that the early Hebrews were grievously, blasphemously wrong to think that they had a divine authorization to commit genocidal massacres of women, children, infants, and the disabled in their wars with pagan peoples.

By the way, Dave’s link to the article on Amalec in the Catholic Encyclopedia, when read carefully, is not as helpful to his cause as he thinks. Please consider what John F. Fenlon, the author of this article, says in this excerpt:

“The fulfillment of this prophecy is enjoined upon the Israelites by Moses in a farewell discourse as a sacred duty. ‘When they shall have established peace with all other people, then shall they blot out the remembrance of Amalec from under heaven: see thou forget it not’ (Deut., xxv, 19). And if this seem an inhuman command, let us remember the prevailing sentiment that the Amalecites were ‘inhuman and barbarous; a people with such evil customs deserves no mercy’; for it is a question of national life or death. ***It is plain, however, that we are far from the Sermon on the Mount ** * (my italicization and bolding).”

Fenlon at least sees the grave problem lurking in the extermination warfare texts: their surface meaning blatantly contradicts the ethic taught by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in the Sermon on the Mount (*Mt * 5:38-48; 7:12).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fenlon at least sees the grave problem lurking in the extermination warfare texts

He does not assert as you do that the Divine command by God to Saul to destroy the Amalekites was not in fact a divine command truthfully voiced through his prophet Samuel. He merely comments upon the wrath of God in the Old Covenant as compared to his mercy in the New.

Elsewhere Fenlon writes,

Then came the prophet Samuel and reminded Saul of Amalec’s old offence and God’s decree of extermination.

… For this disobedience in sparing Agag and the best of the flocks and herds, Saul was rejected in the name of God by Samuel who hewed down Agag in his presence; from that day his fortune changed, and when, after Samuel’s death, Saul consulted his spirit in the cave at Endor, he was told that he was rejected because he had not executed the fierce wrath of God upon Amalec

Note that it not Samuel’s false interpretation of God’s decree. Fenlon describes it as “God’s decree of extermination.” He even references Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman’s sermon which you disagreed with.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Strider:

As far as God ordering the Israelites to kill even the women and children, am I the only one who has a copy of the Navarre Bible?

The explanation for this text in the Navarre is that not only were the Amalekites pagans and idolaters, but STD’s (as we call them today) had spread through their entire population, even the children and the animals (not pleasant to think about, but sometimes reality is harsh), and God was protecting the Israelites by having them kill everyone and everything rather than let them live and mingle with them, thereby contracting the diseases, sacrificing their children to pagan gods, etc. It’s a plausible explanation.

So, you see, what seems to us a completely un-Godlike action makes perfect sense when properly understood.

Since I don’t have a Navarre Bible, I can’t verify that it has been accurately cited. Nonetheless, the “explanation” that makes “perfect sense” to the author of the above post strikes me as repulsive and even sacrilegious. It’s difficult for me to believe that the author of the post truly understands Jesus’s teaching on love of enemies (*Mt * 5:38-48; 7:12), or St. John’s definition of God as love (*1 Jn * 4:8)

Shall we kill all those millions of human beings afflicted with AIDS and other STD’s to preserve the rest of humanity from contagion?

In proposing “explanations” of problematic Biblical texts, “**elievers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism” (Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes, section 19; *CCC * 2125).

Keep and spread the Faith.**

 

[JohnCarroll]

It seems to me the real question is whether an entire group of people can be so evil that they must die? Is it possible? I think it is possible. What are the alternatives in this case? Kill all those who fought and take the rest as slaves? Not so good either. Don’t go in at all? Stay slaves themselves. Kill everyone but the innocent? How? But isn’t it acknowledged that even though the Hebrews were supposed to do this terrible thing , they did not-- and for that reason often wandered away in idolatry themselves.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave’s citations from St. Thomas do nothing to shake the thesis that the early Hebrews were grievously, blasphemously wrong to think that they had a divine authorization to commit genocidal massacres of women, children, infants, and the disabled in their wars with pagan peoples.

Support the thesis with magisterial texts and you’ll be more convincing.

I find it interesting how St. Thomas fails to mention how wrong the Israelites were when 1 Sam 15 was specifically cited in objection to the orthodox faith. Instead of taking the opportunity to tell us the thesis you expect all to accept uncritically he states: "God works in all things without exception whatever is right, yet in each one according to its mode. … The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands. "

Likewise, from objection 3 in Summa IIb, 1 Sam 15 is specifically cited…

Objection 3. Further, ignorance makes an act involuntary. Now vengeance is sometimes taken on the ignorant. Thus the children of the people of Sodom, though they were in invincible ignorance, perished with their parents (Gn. 19). Again, for the sin of Dathan and Abiron their children were swallowed up together with them (Num 16). Moreover, dumb animals, which are devoid of reason, were commanded to be slain on account of the sin of the Amalekites (1 Kgs. 15). Therefore vengeance is sometimes taken on those who have deserved it involuntarily.

To this, St. Thomas could have certainly shared your thesis that such vengeance was only falsely attributed to God. However, St. Thomas does no such thing. Instead, his rebuttal affirmed the vengeance against the Amalekites was in fact God’s vengeance.

Reply to Objection 3. By the judgment of God children are punished in temporal matters together with their parents, both because they are a possession of their parents, so that their parents are punished also in their person, and because this is for their good lest, should they be spared, they might imitate the sins of their parents, and thus deserve to be punished still more severely. Vengeance is wrought on dumb animals and any other irrational creatures, because in this way their owners are punished; and also in horror of sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Since I don’t have a Navarre Bible, I can’t verify that it has been accurately cited. Nonetheless, the “explanation” that makes “perfect sense” to the author of the above post strikes me as repulsive and even sacrilegious.

Thank God we are not bound to your private interpretation of Scritpure, but are instead bound to listen to and obey the “Teaching Church.” And as of yet, you haven’t shown that you thesis is held by the Teaching Church.

Shall we kill all those millions of human beings afflicted with AIDS and other STD’s to preserve the rest of humanity from contagion?

Let me ask you a question … should God directly reveal to you that you ought to kill your son, would you do it or not?

Seems to me you are still comparing apples to oranges. We are bound to do all that God commands of us, whether it is in accord with our notion of justice or not. That’s the lesson that Ven. Newman asserts regarding 1 Sam 15, which seems to have zoomed right by you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In proposing “explanations” of problematic Biblical texts, "elievers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism" (Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes, section 19; *CCC *2125).
I agree. This is why I believe your thesis is ridiculous and dangerous. The Jesus Seminar has made similar claims to disregard the claims the apostles “*falsely” *make (or have been “falsely” attributed to the apostles by later authors of the NT) regarding the miracles of Jesus in the NT.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

SIGH :banghead:

There is no mistranslation. Think like an ancient Jew not like a 21st-century American.

In Jewish cultural understanding to “hate” is not to harbor some kind of murderous grudge about a person; to “hate” is simply not to love as much. The Jews did not have so much an understanding of love in terms of degrees, it was more black and white to them. So what is to love for them? It’s in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5): “Hear O Israel: The LORD your God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”. THAT for them is the best love to be given to God alone, any less is considered “hate”. Hence: “God loved Jacob but hated Esau.” DId he really hate Esau the way we hate enemies? No. It just means that he loved Jacob over Esau to give Jacob the covenant inheritance.

To hate one’s family then was simply to relegate them to a lesser priority from God. We are obligated to choose God above all else. That is the Jewish/Biblical understanding of “hate.”

Oh, really? Then I must have misunderstood the article “The Virtue of Hate,” by Meir Y. Soloveichik, in the February 2003 issue of First Things. I don’t know if this can be obtained online, but it surely was an eyeopener for me, and I certainly suggest you read it. Rabbi Soloveichik and you have radically different interpretations of Jewish “hate.” Of course, he’s a 21st century American Jew, and your statements are about ancient ones. Ah, that’s the difference!

tsk! tsk!

Anna

 

[chrisg93]

Strider:

Mat 5:29-30 “If your right eye cuses you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell…”
Did Jesus really want us to pluck our out eyes and cut off our right hands? Of course not. Hyperbole was a common form of teaching in first century Palestine, and intelligent Bible reading requires us to learn that.

This passage is NOT hyperbole. It is exactly what Jesus wants us to do. Jesus never exagerated or hyperbolized. Our sin is “caused” by our evil and wicked nature, BUT if your hand did ever “cause” you to sin (which is almost impossible, except the Mark of the Beast on your hand) then you should cut your hand off! This verse means exactly what it says. Remember Jesus never exagerated or hyperbolized.

 

[knute]

Steve O'Brien:

Rome has ***never *** said that God actually ordered ancient Hebrew soldiers to kill Canaanite women, children, and other innocent civilians. In sections 2312-2314 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium is strongly implying that it accepts the contrary exegesis of the problematic Old Testament passages.

What Rome *does * teach is an understanding of Biblical inerrancy that allows us to conclude that the human authors of Scripture, contrary to what appears on the surface of the text, “truly wanted to affirm” (*CCC * 109) nothing beyond this: the early Hebrews *thought * that God had commanded this slaughter of innocents. In thinking this, however, the early Hebrews were grievously misinterpreting God’s will.

Let’s not make the same mistake.

SteveO’Brien: Do you realize how absurd that post is? Are you seriously suggesting the sacred writer totally misconstrued what God really wanted and wrote to mislead people? What sense does this make? Using your logic, how can I be sure John didn’t screw up Jesus’s teaching about loving your neighbor? If we can’t trust what the word on the page clearly says, the concept of inerrancy becomes absurd. My parish priest always says “it’s good to keep an open mind on things. But not so open that your brains fall out!” You sound very intelligent SteveO’Brien and are certainly well-read. But, frankly, you’ve tried to figure out God and have talked yourself into this whopper of an idea that the sacred writers can screw up God’s message.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Why couldn’t God have commanded it? When the Israelites wandered in the desert He killed several of them because of their disobedience. Some of the Israelite’s laws are punishable with death. The Bible says those laws were commanded by God. There was no word about a warning for the first offense. I don’t think any of us are either qualified or able to determine what God really meant or if some passages are wrong. There have been mistranslations due to differences in language, it would be better to read through the OT in Hebrew and see how things are worded.

 

[ccav]

Whew!!! Tough thread!!!